3:58 pmRuss: The non-religious may give less financially, but I’m not so sure about time. They seem quite committed to their political causes, and readily devote their time to them. And why give money if it can be taken by political force from the religious?

Okay, childrens, everyone get your EFs out. Arden, put that down! Okay, first put last years US charitable contributions in slot A. Good. Now, put the contributions of just 3 atheists, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and George Soros in slot B. No, Kieths, B, not D. Okay. Who can tell me what percentage of the population are atheists? Good - put that in slot C. If you've all done this correctly you should see the answer - "Jebus" - in slot D.

*Sigh* The reference to politics is a reference to global warming, I fear. Well, I see that there were floods this weekend near Waco, my wacko Theodicy dearie-dear. Just look for this sign if you-alls need to flee. I admit that it's easier to sneak time from work to blog'n'blat than it is to give $$$ I don't have.

I'm tired of this sniping on this issue. I don't care who "gives more." I don't need to be "more moral" than anybody, but I just wish they could can the "they're all degenerates" crap. It really dashes my optimism.

--------------Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

For years now, YEARS, I've been asking IDers to explain to me (since, ya know, ID and creationism aren't, uh, the same thing) what this "traditional doctrine of creation" is, and why ID wants to defend it.

For there to be a truth, there must be a proposition whose content is true or has the property of being true. Propositions are intentional entities; they have a content which is intrinsically and essentially (non-derivatively) about their object, and it is this content which can have the property of being true. So in order for the materialist to claim that truth exists, she must claim that propositional content which can have the property of being true is material, but how in the world can there be a material state be intrinsically about an object, and how can a material state possibly have the property of being true? Intrinsic, non-derivative content here is key, and it is just nonsensical to think of a material state which is about another material state in virtue of its truth, its falsity, or anything else.

These issues were first articulated (in this form, apart from the problem of consciousness) by Franz Brentano in 1874 and have become known as Brentano's thesis. It points to a genuine paradox within philosophy and has generated a huge literature addressing the problem of naturalizing intentionality. As the Cranster well knows, many toughminded philosophers (e.g. Rorty, Searle, Fodor, Pylyshyn, Dennett, Stalnaker, Quine, Putnam, Stich, Bogdan, the Churchlands, Chalmers, Haugland, on and on) have grappled with the question and suggested various solutions, and progress has been in made in framing the problem. None have suggested that a return to dualism gets it done.

However, if Crandaddy hopes that dualism solves this problem, and takes comfort from this struggle to naturalize intentionality, he need only restate his question to disabuse himself of this hope (edited for clarity):

"But how in the world can a non-material state be intrinsically about an object, and how can a non-material state possibly have the property of being true?"

Apparently, the Cranster thinks this is an easier question. I'd be interested in the philosophical program he is pursuing to address himself to it, because "non-material intentional state" surely raises more questions than it answers. Such an account confronts all of the paradoxes with which naturalism grapples - all the while having no way to think productively about the non-material and its relationship to the biological information processing that goes on within the human organism, which surely underlies human intentionality. Does he suppose the non-material supports representation in a manner similar to computation? Similar to neural nets? How do spiritual states of affairs refer to either spiritual or material states of affairs? Do angels dancing on the head of a pin display real intentionality, or only derived intentionality?

It's a non-starter, and the Cranster knows it. One hopes.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

For there to be a truth, there must be a proposition whose content is true or has the property of being true. Propositions are intentional entities; they have a content which is intrinsically and essentially (non-derivatively) about their object, and it is this content which can have the property of being true. So in order for the materialist to claim that truth exists, she must claim that propositional content which can have the property of being true is material, but how in the world can there be a material state be intrinsically about an object, and how can a material state possibly have the property of being true? Intrinsic, non-derivative content here is key, and it is just nonsensical to think of a material state which is about another material state in virtue of its truth, its falsity, or anything else.

These issues were first articulated (in this form, apart from the problem of consciousness) by Franz Brentano in 1874 and have become known as Brentano's thesis. It points to a genuine paradox within philosophy and has generated a huge literature addressing the problem of naturalizing intentionality. As the Cranster well knows, many toughminded philosophers (e.g. Rorty, Searle, Fodor, Pylyshyn, Dennett, Stalnaker, Quine, Putnam, Stich, Bogdan, the Churchlands, Chalmers, Haugland, on and on) have grappled with the question and suggested various solutions, and progress has been in made in framing the problem. None have suggested that a return to dualism gets it done.

However, if Crandaddy hopes that dualism solves this problem, and takes comfort from this struggle to naturalize intentionality, he need only restate his question to disabuse himself of this hope (edited for clarity):

"But how in the world can a non-material state be intrinsically about an object, and how can a non-material state possibly have the property of being true?"

Apparently, the Cranster thinks this is an easier question. I'd be interested in the philosophical program he is pursuing to address himself to it, because "non-material intentional state" surely raises more questions than it answers. Such an account confronts all of the paradoxes with which naturalism grapples - all the while having no way to think productively about the non-material and its relationship to the biological information processing that goes on within the human organism, which surely underlies human intentionality. Does he suppose the non-material supports representation in a manner similar to computation? Similar to neural nets? How do spiritual states of affairs refer to either spiritual or material states of affairs? Do angels dancing on the head of a pin display real intentionality, or only derived intentionality?

It's a non-starter, and the Cranster knows it. One hopes.

"Philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relationship to one another as masturbation and sexual intercourse." -- K Marx

Do any of you see civil war eventually coming out of this anserine thinking? [This "anserine" thinking being the Supreme Court's ruling on greenhouse gases, that was somehow "rigged" by the scientific community.]

There’s no way this kind of stupidity can continue without consequences. Somebody has to stop this folly. [With another civil war? ]

I can easily envision the US as a divided nation once again ending up at war within itself over issues like this.

From an non American stance, I can see the divisions growing wider and the sides taking clearer shape with each passing year.

Not a harbinger of peace.

So help me, I have thought about this, what people being turned back by armed cops during Katrina as they tried to cross a bridge that led to a suburb, and also with Bush's statements about quarantine if there was an outbreak of avian flu.

But I have thought of these things in horror. Borne sounds like he wants us to have a war.

I visited his blog and it's full of "atheism is nihilism, atheists may be nice but they're just fooling themselves, Darwinian life has no meaning" blah blah. Well, I must say, if things degenerated in this country I'd be the one smuggling refugees, like the atheists Anais Nin and Henry Miller in France during the Spanish civil war (and later, Jews during WWII - all those atheists in the French Resistance too, before the war ended and suddenly everyone belonged to it).

Where do these people get their hatred? The auto industry is also calling for the federal government to regulate emissions so they don't have to deal with a "patchwork" of state's rules. A war over this? Because of a ruling from a court that Bush has tried to stack? Is this a joke? Maybe they're having us on. But I'm pretty gullible in some ways and my hair stood on end. Are they serious?

--------------Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

Cambridge House Press (not to be confused with Cambridge University Press) publishes adolescent critique of IDWilliam [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/cambridge-house-press-not-to-be-confused-with-cambridge-university-press-publishes-adolesc

ent-critique-of-id/]Dembski[/URL]

Barrett Brown and Jon P. Alston, who appear only recently to have entered puberty judging by their obsession with sex....This book takes the level invective, namecalling, and sexual obsession (while abnegating intellectual content) among our Darwinist critics to a new low. But the important question here is, can they go still lower? I’d like to encourage P. Z. Myers to try his hand at a full-length book treatment of ID.

Wow. One for Dembski. Just how low will those Darwinians go? Next we'll be watching animated talking heads accompanied by the sound of flatulence. Despicable.

Stay above the fray, dude, and keep that dignity.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

Where do these people get their hatred? The auto industry is also calling for the federal government to regulate emissions so they don't have to deal with a "patchwork" of state's rules. A war over this? Because of a ruling from a court that Bush has tried to stack? Is this a joke? Maybe they're having us on. But I'm pretty gullible in some ways and my hair stood on end. Are they serious?

Yes, they are serious.

The fundies want political power. *Absolute* political power. They want a theocracy, with themselves as "theo". They will not stop, ever, until they get it.

They tried and failed to gain it through democratic methods. It would not surprise me in the slightest to see them try for it through NON-democratic methods. It's why I keep my hunting rifle well-oiled.

If the fundies do manage to seize political power and dismantle democracy, I will do whatever it takes to remove them from power.

The one comfort I have is that they aren't bulletproof. No matter HOW goddamn holy they think they are, if you shoot them, they die just like everyone else.

So help me, I have thought about this, what people being turned back by armed cops during Katrina as they tried to cross a bridge that led to a suburb, and also with Bush's statements about quarantine if there was an outbreak of avian flu.

Check out Blackwater USA, who account for a large percentage of the "military forces" in Iraq:

Where do these people get their hatred? The auto industry is also calling for the federal government to regulate emissions so they don't have to deal with a "patchwork" of state's rules. A war over this? Because of a ruling from a court that Bush has tried to stack? Is this a joke? Maybe they're having us on. But I'm pretty gullible in some ways and my hair stood on end. Are they serious?

Yes, they are serious.

The fundies want political power. *Absolute* political power. They want a theocracy, with themselves as "theo". They will not stop, ever, until they get it.

They tried and failed to gain it through democratic methods. It would not surprise me in the slightest to see them try for it through NON-democratic methods. It's why I keep my hunting rifle well-oiled.

If the fundies do manage to seize political power and dismantle democracy, I will do whatever it takes to remove them from power.

The one comfort I have is that they aren't bulletproof. No matter HOW goddamn holy they think they are, if you shoot them, they die just like everyone else.

No fundies here Lenny but something to think about:

Rev 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and [to] his throne.

This book takes the level invective, namecalling, and sexual obsession (while abnegating intellectual content) among our Darwinist critics to a new low. But the important question here is, can they go still lower? I’d like to encourage P. Z. Myers to try his hand at a full-length book treatment of ID.

Rev 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and [to] his throne.

Zero

Huh? I don't know what you're talking about.

Here's something people at UD should get pissed about, since they're talking about global warming and green houses and such. I believe in paying taxes, but they're taxing these people's efforts. If fuel is practically non-polluting and they make it, why shouldn't it be free?

--------------Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

This book takes the level invective, namecalling, and sexual obsession (while abnegating intellectual content) among our Darwinist critics to a new low. But the important question here is, can they go still lower? I’d like to encourage P. Z. Myers to try his hand at a full-length book treatment of ID.

Not enough farting in it, Bill?

Bourne adds:

Quote

Alston is not a scientist… but as a licensed psychologist it is clear that he needs to get his head examined by one more competent than himself.

So, psychologists are not allowed to comment on ID coz it's science, but engineers know more about biology then biologists?

But Bourne does get one thing right, but fails to remember "if the cap fits"

Quote

When they have nothing left but imprecations, bitterness, perversions and “threatenings and slaughter” to spit, they’re pretty much washed up.

Another lamp for your projector sir?

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

3:58 pmRuss: The non-religious may give less financially, but I’m not so sure about time. They seem quite committed to their political causes, and readily devote their time to them. And why give money if it can be taken by political force from the religious?

Anybody smell the equivalent of quote mining here? Let's look at the Opening Post that Dr. Dr. Dembski is referring to here:

Quote

Commenting on Sam Harris and his facile denunciations of religion, Mike Gene hits the mark:

Okay, now that we KNOW it's bogus, let's see WHY it's bogus. Scoot down to reply #4 and see what The Scubaredneck has to say:

Quote

Here’s an interesting tidbit about charities in general: each year, Money Magazine does a special issue talking about charities in America. In the article, they rate various charities in terms of how much of the money donated actually goes to program.

The perinnial winners? Religious charities (specifically such groups as Campus Crusade and The Navigators). In fact, secular charities such as The United Way and the American Red Cross never even deserve significant mention because so little of their money actually goes to program.

Campus Crusade? A charity? Go to their website and see if you can find any traces of charity! CC is a proselytizing organization. The Navigators? They do somecharitable work, but they're better known for ... proselytizing.

Even more interesting: The United Way and The American Red cross, to name the two (real) charities that Scubaredneck trashed, have to account for every penny they take in and if they spend too much of it on a new Jet for their managers, they can go to jail. But the religious "charities" can buy Benny Hind a new $20 million jet every month if they want to and they don't even have to tell the government that they've done it because they're, you know, religious, so we'll just trust them.

For those who are interested in what real charities do with their money, here's a list of how some of them are doing. Note that the Red Cross spends about 91% of the money it takes in on real charity work, although that's apparently not good enough for Scubaredneck.

...Is evolution of antibiotic resistance by bacteria an example of Darwinism? Such a claim is very suspicious since Darwinism deals mainly with the origin of species.

Evolution of antibiotic resistance is an example of survival of the fittest within a species, not an origin of species. This phenomenon ought more properly to be credited to the ideas of Edward Blyth rather than Charles “Gas” Darwin.

Loren Eiseley, Professor of Anthropology and the History of Science at the University of Pennsylvania correctly argues:"the leading tenets of Darwin’s work—the struggle for existence, variation, natural selection and sexual selection—are all fully expressed in Blyth’s paper of 1835."

'Ova, some quick education:

- Although Darwin's book was entitled "On the Origin of Species," he never actually directly addressed speciation. Instead, he developed his thesis around the themes of the struggle for existence, variation, natural selection and sexual selection. Eiseley knew this. You don't. In fact, you got it exactly backward.- The Blyth issue, which Eiseley raised decades ago, has been dispatched repeatedly, as anyone really interested in the history of evolutionary science knows.- The evolution of antibiotic resistance by bacteria isn't just a confirmation of "Darwinism" - it is one thread of the massive consilience of data that supports modern evolutionary biology, which is light years beyond Darwin's early formulation.- Eiseley has been dead since 1977. Apparently you still think he has office hours.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

Here's something people at UD should get pissed about, since they're talking about global warming and green houses and such. I believe in paying taxes, but they're taxing these people's efforts. If fuel is practically non-polluting and they make it, why shouldn't it be free?

I am regularly in the Mrs, however I was sadly not in Chicago this time around. I went a couple of years ago and I am trying my damnedest to go next year. The ACS conference is the capo di tutti capi of extravagant conferences at which beers may be had. Although I did go to one in Brazil a few years back......

Recently, there was a bit of correspondence between moderators of our list about the question of whether aggressive Darwinists can be accused of being like Nazis.

Godwin's law. You lose.

Quote

Rather, the embarrassing problem is that the early Darwinists didn’t really believe what they wanted the public to believe - that natural selection created all things bright and beautiful. So they felt they had to interfere when they didn’t like what they were seeing - hence, eugenics.

Hmm, deliberate intervention into the "natural" order of things. I think that's called Intelligent Design.

Let me spell it out for you lurking UDites: Eugenics is intelligent design, not natural selection.

If you want to call experiments that coax bacteria to mutate and computer algorithms that solve problems using selection rules as intelligent design, then you have to call eugenics a form of intelligent design. Using your own logic, of course.

Quote

And today’s Darwinist doesn’t justify his NON-interference (i.e., distaste for eugenics) on the grounds that natural selection is at work and should not be interfered with. No, he grabs the notion of “human rights” whole from non-eugenic systems that don’t even try to address the question from a Darwinian perspective.

In other words, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with morals or laws? Well, thank you for clearing that up Densye.

Sorry, I should have made it clear that the Brazil conference was not an ACS one, it's implied but not clear in what I wrote. Blame beers!

I don't think I can make Boston but I'd like to make New Orleans. The ACS conference I made a few years ago was the 226th in NYC. A love that city...I even did some chemistry!

Do you go to the national meetings often?

Louis

Eh, I go to them when I can. Those and the regional ones. It tends to get expensive, though. Yeah, I'm curious about the New Orleans one. The city needs the revenue, but can it handle a thing like an ACS meeting? Sure, why not?

The Granville Sewell defenders are starting to emerge, none of whom have taken the time to understand Sewell's argument. Pixie's post is 100% correct, and Sewell knows it. Sewell now has a chance to demonstrate his integrity by correcting his defenders. Will he do it?

[Quoting Pixie]The rearrangement of atoms into human brains and computers and the Internet clearly does not violate any law of nature, recognized or not.

Predictably, we see a pouncing on a minor error, in a context where the material point was already noted and corrected: SPONTANEOUS. (So, I have reason to say that we see here the knocking over of a convenient strawman. The PCs and net are DESIGNED, and the DNA that largely controls the production of the human brain etc evinces all the characteristics that we would at once infer to be designed were not a worldview assertion in the way.]

Predictable . . . and, sad.

But since the 2nd Law makes no distinction between SPONTANEOUS and DESIGNED, Sewell's assertion is wrong no matter how you slice it. Brains and computers are not a violation of the 2nd Law, and anyone who says that they are is a crackpot.

--------------"I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot